Erm, obviously people interpret things according to their world-view; but I think that's full of holes.

I'm not interpreting anything according to my own world-view. I'm merely pointing out deceitful terminology and obvious inconsistencies in the official version of the events in Libya that is disseminated by the mainstream/corporate media. I find it quite astonishing that the majority of people doesn't seem to register the glaringly propagandistic language employed in legitimizing the intervention. After all, the 'media-savvy' and 'post-ideological' 21st century populace seems to be as susceptible to the power of words as were previous generations of human beings.

I wonder whether the people here on Dissensus who deem the Western intervention in Libya to be justified actually don't perceive any kind of cognitive dissonance when authorities use the term "peacekeeping measures" to refer to offensive military actions? Do you think to yourself: "Sure, that's euphemistic, however, I know that what they mean is a military operation; I'm smart enough to discern the real meaning from the standardized phrases of official language." Of course you are, but how can you be sure that the mode of expression in the official announcements and in the media didn't actually have a profound influence on your 'personal' assessment of the situation? That's how propaganda works, on a subsconscious level, and it is the more effective the more one believes one isn't lied to.

Originally Posted by droid

So the US could have been justified in bombing London after Bloody Sunday? And Tel Aviv should have been bombed during Israel's latest Gaza campaign?

AFAIK Ianugo is right on this point. The evidence of war crimes/human rights abuses is relatively sketchy. If killing unarmed protestors justifies intervention, then Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, and maybe Syria all qualify.

Exactly. Not to mention that members of the Arab League, a major force in the passing of the UN resolution, actually sent security forces to Bahrain to assist the local powerholders in quelling the rebellion there. So, on the hand an international alliance is formed to stop the killing of civilians in one country but on the other hand members of this very alliance actively engange in the killing of civilians in another country! The mind boggles. There's footage of government forces in Bahrain shooting protestors at point-blank range and one is left to wonder why this kind of repression is not perceived as a "crime against humanity" by the international community.

Oh, and while it's at it, why doesn't the Coalition of the Willing intervene in Côte d'Ivoire? The conflict between president Gbagbo and the supposedly rightful winner of the last election Ouattara is turning into a veritable civil war. A major humanitarian crisis is expected as a consequence. Who will stop it? Or should cacao be of less interest than oil?

Originally Posted by Mr. Tea

Heaven forfend that mere Arabs, mere Muslims, could possibly have an active programme or ideology of their own, rather than having been either threatened or bribed into action by 'The West'. Because only white, preferably English-speaking Westerners actually have moral agency and volition, right?

When setting up a straw man you should be careful to make it resemble at least roughly your opponent's opinion. Your drivel would be an utter non-sequitur if one couldn't tell that, in fact, you've given vent there to your own petty resentment.

(but then, no doubt the International Federation for Human Rights is a CIA-sponsored front promoting the Zionist New World Order, blah blah blah...)

"It is reasonable to fear that the accused has, in fact, decided to murder, wherever he still can, innocent members of the public... and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately break the law..."

Only in a legal system were accusations counted as hard evidence a defendant could be sentenced on the basis of such a reasoning as above. Such a legal system wouldn't be a legal system at all and the fact that, to push the analogy further, Ghaddafi has been sentenced without conclusive evidence of his alleged crimes only proves that international law is nothing but a charade in service of the fancy-worded legitimation of arbitrary power interests.

Originally Posted by Mr. Tea

You really are the epitome of the smug, soi-disant 'leftist' who'll suck up to any old bloodstained tyrant as long as he's suitably 'anti-Western', aren't you?

The efficiency of your mindset in breaking down reality into manageable stereotypes is quite astounding. Even if it's a bit boring at times, it must feel really cozy in your tiny little world of clichés, doesn't it?

One could almost feel sorry for you because of your ignorance but denouncing me as "smug" for actually being interested in the truth is so incredibly low and so irredeemably perverse that all pity turns into disdain.

No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.

That's interesting, do you think the mutilated torso pics were doctered then? And don't suppose you've got any links to news sources with these opposing points of view? All I've managed to find (pro-Gaddafi) is some English guy writing for Pravda Online, but googling him turned up a few sites describing him as a bit of a nutter.

If this is an orchestrated campaign by the CIA etc, I still find it confusing; AFAIK, Gaddafi wasn't doing anything to hamper the oil majors' activities out there, so why go and shoot the place up?

Uh, apart from the knee-jerk assumption that the opposition in any Arab/Muslim state ruled by a regime unfriendly to 'the West'* must necessarily be sponsored by the CIA...perhaps you also consider Ahmedinejad the legitimate and justified defender of Iran against Mousavi's counterrevolutionary tendency...

*and as martin points out, Gaddafi apparently has no problem selling his country's oil to Western countries, so why would the CIA want to stir up trouble and provoke violence that's going to make it *more* difficult and expensive to buy Libyan oil?

Originally Posted by lanugo

Oh, and while it's at it, why doesn't the Coalition of the Willing intervene in Côte d'Ivoire? The conflict between president Gbagbo and the supposedly rightful winner of the last election Ouattara is turning into a veritable civil war. A major humanitarian crisis is expected as a consequence. Who will stop it? Or should cacao be of less interest than oil?

Hang on, are you arguing for intervention, or against it? The fact that violent oppression is happening in one country is not, in itself, an argument against trying to prevent violent oppression in another.

Originally Posted by lanugo

When setting up a straw man you should be careful to make it resemble at least roughly your opponent's opinion. Your drivel would be an utter non-sequitur if one couldn't tell that, in fact, you've given vent there to your own petty resentment.

Straw man, my arse. I've seen this so many times: the solipsistic worldview of people for whom everything happening anywhere in the world is about 'the West', which is to say, about us. The idea that a country, especially a Muslim country, might have internal politics and divisions, and that a large part of the populace might spontaneously revolt against a corrupt and violent despot, just throws up a 'does not compute'.

Originally Posted by lanugo

"It is reasonable to fear that the accused has, in fact, decided to murder, wherever he still can, innocent members of the public... and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately break the law..."

Only in a legal system were accusations counted as hard evidence a defendant could be sentenced on the basis of such a reasoning as above. Such a legal system wouldn't be a legal system at all and the fact that, to push the analogy further, Ghaddafi has been sentenced without conclusive evidence of his alleged crimes only proves that international law is nothing but a charade in service of the fancy-worded legitimation of arbitrary power interests.

Whereas you've already decided that the protesters are definitely guilty of killing black immigrants who are definitely not mercenaries. I've seen this contrariness-for-contrariness's-sake from you so many times before. It's not big and it's not clever.

Originally Posted by lanugo

Even if it's a bit boring at times, it must feel really cozy in your tiny little world of clichés, doesn't it?

One could almost feel sorry for you because of your ignorance but denouncing me as "smug" for actually being interested in the truth is so incredibly low and so irredeemably perverse that all pity turns into disdain.

Whereas you, alone, have access to the unalloyed, objective TRUTH.

Oh, and speaking of straw men, who are "the people here on Dissensus who deem the Western intervention in Libya to be justified"? Crackerjack says it might be, albeit with heavy reservations. No-one else here has said they support it. I'm not sure where I stand, and can see it doing more harm than good if for no other reason than that it risks de-legitimising the opposition.

If this is an orchestrated campaign by the CIA etc, I still find it confusing; AFAIK, Gaddafi wasn't doing anything to hamper the oil majors' activities out there, so why go and shoot the place up?

I have no evidence to suggest CIA involvement in anything going on in Libya other than the standard embassy type activities. But there have been increasing concerns (since 2007) about 'nationalist rhetoric' regarding oil revenue:

1.(C) Summary: Libya has a long history of resource nationalism linked to the policies and rhetoric of the Qadhafi regime. Beginning in the 1990's, many of these practices were scaled back; however, the removal of U.S. and UN sanctions and Libya's attendant opening to the world have prompted a resurgence of measures designed to increase the GOL's control over and share of revenue from hydrocarbon resources. End Summary.

INVESTMENT SURGE ...

2.(C) With the lifting of UN and U.S. sanctions, foreign investment has surged back in to Libya over the past three years. -- U.S. companies adopted a number of return strategies, from buying back old concessions (Marathon and ConocoPhillips), winning bids for new blocs (Chevron and ExxonMobil), or a combination of both (Amerada Hess and Oxy). Since January 2005, there have been three Exploration and Production Sharing (EPSA) rounds, in which exploration areas have been competitively bid to foreign companies. These steps have produced a flurry of new work, as the more than forty international oil companies (exclusive of oil service companies) toil to discover marketable quantities of oil and gas. -- Several new "one-off" deals have also been concluded, including massive deals with Shell and British Petroleum, and a 25-year extension of Italian company ENI's oil and gas EPSA's. -- The GOL has also shown a growing interest in developing its natural gas capabilities; an EPSA round for gas will come to a close this December.

... SPARKS NATIONALIST RHETORIC, POLICIES

3.(C) With this inflow of capital, and in particular the return of international oil companies (IOCs), there has been growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism. The regime has made a point of putting companies on notice that "exploitative" behavior will not be tolerated. In his annual speech marking the founding of his regime, Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi in 2006 said: "Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them -- now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money." His son, Seif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, said in March 2007 that, "We will not tolerate a foreign company to make a profit at the expense of a Libyan citizen."

4.(C) Beyond the rhetoric, there are other signs of growing resource nationalism. -- Some IOCs with local subsidiaries have been forced to adopt Libyan names this year, including TOTAL (now officially titled "Mabruk"), Repsol ("Akakoss"), ENI ("Mellita") and Veba ("Al-Hurruj"), although these names have yet to catch on. -- The Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC) is currently in the process of reworking long-standing oil concessions with several different IOCs (Ref B), in an effort to wring more favorable terms. There is a growing concern in the IOC community that NOC, emboldened by soaring oil prices and the press of would-be suitors, will seek better terms on both concession and production-sharing agreements, even those signed very recently. -- Libyan labor laws have also been amended to "Libyanize" the economy in several key sectors, and IOCs are now being forced to hire untrained Libyan employees. The Libyan National Oil Company (NOC) has recently begun insisting that deputy general managers, finance managers and human resource managers in local offices of IOC's be Libyan. -- The enactment of Law #443 of 2006 obligated most foreign companies to form joint ventures with Libyan companies in order to operate in the country. (Note: This currently excludes IOCs, but includes all foreign oil and gas service companies. End Note).

5.(C) The latest EPSA rounds could well prove to be a testing ground for how far Libya will travel down this path. The intense competition of the bid rounds led to winning bids that TRIPOLI 00000967 002 OF 002 are widely considered by hydrocarbon industry experts to be economically untenable. Chinese and Russian bids that allow companies to book only 7-10% of future production were hailed by NOC Chairman Shukri Ghanem as "very good for us...and "[clearly] also good for the companies, since they submitted the offer"...

The whole situation seems even more bizarre and morally twisted if you consider recent history.

In 2003, Gadaffi made the famous 'deal in the desert'. He agreed to open up Libyan oilfields to Western companies (greatly benefiting BP and Italian firms), and make efforts to stem the movement of African migrants to Italy in return for the normalisation of business and political links and the eventual lifting of sanctions. Now thats par for the course with friendly tyrants, but the management of perception by the West is where it gets interesting. In order to sweeten the deal the following was requested:

1) That Libya Admit responsibility for Lockerbie and pay compensation to the families of victims
2) That Libya discontinue its WMD/nuclear programs
3) That Libya admit responsibility for the '86 Berlin disco bombing and pay compensation.

The problem with these conditions is 1) that Libya had nothing to do with Lockerbie, 2) it had no WMD or nuclear programs to abandon and 3) it had nothing to do with the '86 bombing, which was itself used as a pretext for the the April '86, US primetime bombing of Tripoli which killed one of Gadaffis adopted daughters.

So in effect, in order to be welcomed back into the fold Gadaffi was asked to rubber stamp and justify Westen propaganda and intervention going back 20 years, which it seems he was happy to do so considering the enormous potential personal gains renewed resource exploitation would bring - only now those same mea culpas are being used to back up the case for the current intervention... And thats all before we even look at Blairs dodgy dealings...

"There's footage of government forces in Bahrain shooting protestors at point-blank range and one is left to wonder why this kind of repression is not perceived as a "crime against humanity" by the international community.
Oh, and while it's at it, why doesn't the Coalition of the Willing intervene in Côte d'Ivoire? The conflict between president Gbagbo and the supposedly rightful winner of the last election Ouattara is turning into a veritable civil war. A major humanitarian crisis is expected as a consequence. Who will stop it? Or should cacao be of less interest than oil?"

This argument always comes up and I'm not sure why. Just because some atrocities have been ignored it's surely not a reason to ignore others. Would you ever say "we fucked up before, we should fuck up again"? Or are you arguing that we should be in Cote d'Ivoire and Bahrain as well?
I understand the point that the reason for selecting one rather than another is normally cynical but... that's a separate issue.

The bomb was was most likely planted by the PFLP, built by a Jordanian double agent, and paid for with $10 million from the Iranian foreign ministry with intelligence support from Syria, all with the explicit motive for revenge against the US for the shooting down of Iran Air 65 over Iranian waters.

The evidence against Libya is laughable, the trial and attempted trials were all jokes, aviation and intelligence experts have repeatedly testified to the existence of a cover up... Ask Craner if you dont believe me.

"Re. Lockerbie, there's been allegations and evidence pointing both to Libyan culpability, and Syrian/Iranian. Think just flatly stating Libya didn't do it is pushing it a little..."

Yeah, I mean the conviction always looked a bit dodgy to say the least but I don't think you can state it categorically.
Was a grubby little deal to get him out anyway. Good for BP though - at the time.

The bomb was was most likely planted by the PFLP, built by a Jordanian double agent, and paid for with $10 million from the Iranian foreign ministry with intelligence support from Syria, all with the explicit motive for revenge against the US for the shooting down of Iran Air 65 over Iranian waters.

Yeah, 'Private Eye' covered that pretty extensively (and made a convincing case) back in the early '00s, I seem to remember...